Women Must Lead the Church

If you don’t believe me, just look around your sanctuary this coming Sunday and count the men. Then count the women. Unless your church bucks the trend, your church will have a strong majority of women.

I just want to thank everyone for participating in this discussion. Whatever discouragement I may have felt about writing Unladylike: Resisting the Injustice of Inequality in the Church, I have now been reinvigorated that my book’s message is indeed necessary and relevant.

I hope the message of Unladylike will one day not be necessary at all. But that day is not today.

Hello Pam, I find it so sad, that when women want to be treated equally, or even close to equally, we are tarnished with the ‘feminist’ logo. And why oh woh, is equality always related to being ‘equal to a man’, why have we never heard ‘equal to a woman’, as if nothing us women do is ever great by God. How on earth will any woman feel warmth and love at Church when people are over run with patriarchal ideas of what a woman “should be”, when societies all over the world have different cultural aspects of what is considered ‘appropriate wear’ for women. So many years back when searching for Jesus, I went to a church, and afterwards a lady came up to me and said ‘if you want to keep coming to this church, you need to wear a hat’, mind you they were quite expensive fancy hats they were wearing and I never went back to that church ever again. People need to get over this legalistic mindset or no woman will ever turn to Jesus, who treated women with utmost respect. I’m sure the last thing Jesus cares about is what hat a woman wears, when the women with the issue of blood went to Jesus to be healed God didn’t care about what kind of head covering she had, or if she was a top dressed model for church, Jesus recognized her as a woman with utmost faith that Jesus could heal her. The church is still very backward in some ways, and has been one of the most male-dominated patriarchal systems in the world, Jesus came to change that.

Jeremy, I find it rather humorous, in a sad sort of way, that you can write posts about changing (or stopping) baptism and communion (which were good and valid posts), and not hear one peep out of the “plain reading of Scripture” crowd. But bring up women leading and look out…. it seems rather telling.

Good discussion everyone. I agree with much of what I’ve read, and disagree with much as well, but that’s okay. I am learning a lot from everybody.

Here is an interesting question…. If it is sinful for a woman to teach Scripture to a man, is it also sinful for a man to listen to her and engage with her about what she is teaching?

Also, if it is sinful for a woman to teach Scripture to a man, is this only wrong in a “church service” setting, or is it wrong in every setting, all the time, everywhere? I mean, I went to Dallas Theological Seminary, which is fairly conservative in this regard, but I had a Greek Prof who was female. And when you are learning biblical Greek, guess what we discussed? That’s right. Scripture. I learned a lot from her.

For those who think it is wrong for women to teach Scripture to men, was this sinful of her to teach and sinful for me to learn?

Jeremy, It’s apparent from my earlier comments that I don’t believe there is anything sinful about a woman teaching scripture in any setting or a man learning from her. After much study, prayer and thought I am convinced that the idea that only men are allowed to teach scripture, be a pastor, be an elder etc. etc. was a teaching that came about due to the status of women during a particular time and culture and continued because of the patriarchal system that most churches have continued to operate under.

Back in 2008 I wrote a post called “A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Polls” to address how surprised I was at the way Conservative Evangelical Christians were embracing the idea of a woman for Vice President while at the same time standing against women being ordained as pastors. I mentioned that one of the biggest problems with the teaching is that it is difficult to find anyone that completely agrees on where the lines should be drawn. Is it only that women cannot be ordained? Or is it that they cannot preach at all? Or teach? Or speak? Serve as deacons? Teach in seminaries? Be a missionary? What exactly is it that they can and cannot do? Who decides and on what basis?

Then there are all the irrationalities and contradictions to process. Why is it okay to teach children and other women, but not men? Why would it be okay to stand up and deliver a message to a group of people but not stand behind a pulpit? Is it really that much difference in teaching a 17 year old male and a 19 year old male? Why would it be okay for a woman to lead a whole nation but not a church that has 50 members? Why does the bible speak favorably of a woman judge who led, taught and had authority over men and women, a woman apostle, women who led church in their homes?

My point is that in order to maintain the subordination of women Christians have to make a whole lot of stuff up for themselves and explain away a lot of scripture that contradicts the passages they are using to prop up their belief that women’s roles are limited.

Yes, I was posing the question more toward those who think it is sinful. I am not of that crowd either, for many of the reasons you state.

The view that it is sinful for women to teach a man becomes even more difficult when church is defined biblically, rather than as a building where people gather on Sunday morning.

I mean, my wife teaches me things about Scripture and God all the time as we discuss the Bible together. We are both part of the church. I imagine this is true in most Christian marriages. Yet a husband and wife are still in the church, even though they are not in a church building on Sunday morning.

So does a husband who thinks that women should remain silent “in church” not let his wife talk when they are having family devotions?

Jeremy, why are you confusing the point at issue? No one has said that women can’t “evangelize” or “dialogue” to a man PRIVATELY concerning the scriptures (just as Priscilla, along with her husband Aquila, dialogued “privately” with Apollos).

The point is that the New Testament scriptures command that women are not to “teach” scriptures to men, nor are they permitted to hold the office of “pastor, elder, etc.”, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE LOCAL CHURCH. It is these commands which have been referenced scripturally in regard to the role of women in the New Testament congregational setting.

Would you mind stepping back to a more basic level and discussing how one goes about interpreting Scripture? What I mean is that, if you take 1 Timothy 2:12 in it’s most plain sense, at face value, then women are not allowed to teach period; somehow you have inferred that men can learn from women when done “PRIVATELY” but not “IN THE CONTEXT OF THE LOCAL CHURCH.” If your approach to understanding the Bible isn’t simply to take it simply and straightforward, could you help us understand how you believe it should be approached so that we can see how your conclusions are reasonable?

I hope you don’t find it insulting when I say that as is your arguments often require us to accept without any reason that the way you understand some verses is correct yet you can dismiss any verse you chose by saying that their understanding is a ‘misapplication’, perhaps supplying a reasonable approach to how one goes about interpreting Scripture in general could clear up that problem.

I certainly don’t agree with everything you have stated, but I don’t accept everything that those opposed to you have stated as well. I’d be ready to accept the merit in your arguments if I could see what you mean by “sound hermeneutics” rather than being told that others lack them.

Also, I’ll echo Jeremy’s request for a bit of charity in your discussion. By all means, if you believe someone is wrong tell them so, but be ready to discuss why with a bit of kindness and patience; your posts often seem to come across as vitriolic rage.

That is exactly my point. Scripturally, the local church is wherever there are believers. You do not “go to church.” Church goes with you. You are the church whether or not you are in a building on a Sunday morning. Therefore, you are making a faulty distinction when you separate private dialogue with public.

In regard to your request for clarification, I think the definition of the “golden rule of interpretation” given in one of my previous comments in this post, addresses, in general, the issue of sound hermeneutics. To give some basic details on principles of sound literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutics I would recommend the short 14-page manuscript on the subject by Dr. Andy Woods which can be downloaded from:

Regarding 1 Timothy 2:12, if you read it in context you will find that the commands are given in the context of instructions for the local congregation and, therefore, they do not prohibit women from evangelizing or dialoguing privately, or teaching children, or teaching younger women, all of which are allowed in other portions of scripture.

Jeremy, the scripture does not define the church as being “where two or three are gathered together.” To the contrary, all Matthew 18:20 teaches is that where two or three are gathered together, the Lord Jesus is in the midst of them. But this is not the definition of a local church. A local church is much more, than merely where two or three are gathered together.

While the universal “invisible church” would be defined as comprised of all church-age believers (both living and dead), the visible “local church”, as set forth “scripturally”, would be comprised of a group of professing believers in Jesus who have been baptized and have organized themselves under the leadership of elders and deacons for the purpose of carrying out the Great Commission; for conducting the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper; for building up of the Body through the worship of God, the fellowship of believers, the teaching of the Word, and the exercise of spiritual gifts.

ekklesia: those called out, coming together. Many are tempted (as Terry seems above) to introduce various structures & sectarian qualifiers to the plain meaning of ekklesia as a function. We may arrange “a group of professing believers in Jesus who have been baptized and have organized themselves under the leadership of elders and deacons for the purpose of carrying out the Great Commission; for conducting the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper; for building up of the Body through the worship of God, the fellowship of believers, the teaching of the Word, and the exercise of spiritual gifts” and still not be receiving the presence of Christ. 98% of weekly pulpit & steeple organizations reliably fail to demonstrate Christ. Certainly these may also be regarded “ekklesia”; gathering for teaching of philosophy and weekly administrations in hollow religious exercise. So then, we look inside to see and to know, is their life together in Christ or are they mimicking in counterfeit of Him, double-souled?

The issue is spiritual authority, women cannot assume spiritual authority over men and you are dead on regarding the church, you don’t go to church you are the church. Men have surrendered their position and women have filled that vacuum, that is oversimplifying it but nevertheless I feel that is simply what has happened.

Anyone who feels led or called or whatever needs determine if that calling is consistent with scripture, God’s mind on the subject. Frankly, most men would be disqualified from their positions as well if they applied the scriptural standard to their position within their local assembly.

My wife has sat right beside me (25 yrs in July) and remarked to me on more than one ocassion that some of the women who post here seem angry when she has been a believer for almost 40 years and embraces here role and ministry gladly and she has never felt inferior or second rate as some here indicate they have.

Is there a particular scripture that tells you this is about “spriitual authority”. What about the idea that those who believe in Jesus obtain individual priesthood? Doesn’t that mean that they have direct access to God and that God is the person who has “spiritual authority” over them? I don’t understand the idea that teaching scripture equals spiritual authority. Is that a particular denomination belief?

Western society may view some organizations democratically; however the church isn’t a democratic organism.

Family Foundation for the local assembly Ephesians 5:22-24

1. The wife is to be in subjection to her husband as unto the Lord. If she isn’t in subjection to her husband, she isn’t to her Lord either.

Titus 2:5

1. If the wife isn’t in subjection to her husband, then the Word of God is blasphemed.

I Peter 3:1-6

1. The wife is subject to her husband even if he is a non-believer. 2. The wife is to be modestly adorned with a “meek and quiet spirit”. 3. Women of the OT were held up as examples to follow.

To Speak or Not to Speak?

I Corinthian 14:33b-35

1. This is to be followed in all churches. 2. By Paul’s Apostolic authority, women are to be silent in the church setting. 3. This is nothing new, already established 4. Women should refrain from speaking in a church meeting, even asking questions

Should Women Teach Men the Scriptures in a Church Setting?

I Timothy 2:11-14

1. Women are not allowed to teach men…period. 2. Women are to learn in quietness and in subjection. If they do attempt to teach men, they are not in subjection to God. 3. Teachers are in spiritual authority and women are not to assume it over men. 4. Paul supports his doctrine by reminding them of Eve and her being easily deceived 5. Women can teach others

Mike, I don’t fault you for presenting these things in the form of rules (something Paul would likely slap your hand for). However, let’s reach beyond what common English translations are doing to the Bible text. Just grab your interlinear, if you wish to follow along…

Ephesians 5:22-24 The women to the/their men are being subject just as they are being to The Master; (recognizing) that the man is source/head of the woman just as Christ is the Head of the ekklesia and He is savior of the body; even as the ekklesia is being subject to The Christ, so the women are being subject to the/their men in all (things).

Titus 1:3-5 Elder/older women similarly (like the elder/older men) are becoming as sacred, and not as devils; not much enslaved to wine. These are teaching the ideal that they may be aiding young women to the sanity in being fond of their men/husbands; fond of their offspring/children; sane; pure; seeing to the home well; being subject to the/their men, that none of the word of God may be spoken against (on their account).

I Peter 3:1- Likewise (as servants are being subject to their masters, and as Christ is subject to God) the women are being subject to the/their men, and this also that if any men are being stubborn toward the word, through this behavior of the women they should/may be won (out of their stubbornness) without having to say a word (to them)…

I Corinthians 14:34- Your women in the ekklesias, permit them to be hushing because it has not been permitted to them to be talking as they themselves are being subject — which also is in the Law. Allow those (women) who are willing to learn, to inquire at home of their men. Yes (in case you didn’t understand before now), it is shameful/vile for women in the ekklesia to be talking.

I’ll pause the translation review here, but you can keep going!

By the Holy Spirit, it is revolutionary to lift the veil of western mindset even just a little bit.

Relax Marshall, just a few notes from seminary days. I didn’t list them as rules, just as reminders to the previous poster of what the text actually says. And no, Paul would NOT slap my hand (whatever that means).

Thanks for the advice of the interlinear (really?) I prefer my English Bibles, especially the NLT, though I guess I could have used one of the 37 Greek texts I have or copied and pasted from the 24 language software programs I have.

“No one should have to learn another language to read and hear God’s Word.” Ken Graves

Jeremy, it nearly seems frivolous to reference the latest of what some part of the institutional church be doing. Yes, most church buildings & denominations are emptying or static. We would expect them to assess & attempt their own survival, and to mixed or temporary result. Are we here just amusing ourselves? Most English translations have toned-down “Paul”, also tending to bury the language-cultural element of function. Paul isn’t just delivering a list of “do’s” and “dont’s”, he is prescribing for the ekklesia ideal & indelible functionality; akin to describing how fresh fruit may be prevented from rolling off a table. Does anyone not know… men hear men and women differently; women hear women and men differently. These things are not the same, and will not be changed simply by adjusting our rules or church manners. Surely we can for a time pretend anything otherwise we wish, and such is known affectionately as “wishful thinking”.

Jeannette, these differences and others compliment I Corinthians 11:3, with the Father as the Source of/for Christ; Christ as Source/Head of/for man; man as Head/Source for woman. When I’m to following a pure river upstream, there’s no contempt in me for any portion of it; all flows together contiguous, and no part is to be rejected without refusing or disrupting the whole. It’s a pity that western philosophy attempts to define the individual (man or woman) as complete yet alone.

Liz, how we hear one another shows differences through cross-cultural threads. If we infer that (nearly) all cultures are responsible for influenced differences, what then? Rather than challenge broad differences in how people perceive/relate by age or gender, the New Testament writings admonish for awareness & accommodation in an understanding way. [i.e. I Timothy 5:1-2]

Liz, if you have personally succeeded to fully eliminate all nuance of difference between how you understand men and how you comprehend women, please do tell us about your inner conquest. Otherwise, the manner of your responses here appear to be hearing/reading me as one male.

I liked this, Jeremy. I may be on the more conservative side(whatever that is and whatever liberal is…disgusts me actually). But, I do want men to lead the church. I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be equal opportunities and I’m not saying it would oppress women. I just like God’s beautiful design. Everything always seems to work better when it’s God’s idea. Thanks for sharing the video.

Marshall – Again, I don’t know what you are basing your comment on about “men hear men and women differently; women hear women and men differently”. In fact I am not sure what you mean. How do you think a woman hears a woman vs a man and how do you think a man hears a man vs a woman? I think there are cultures where there is an attitude/belief that men are more knowledgeable or more intelligent and if that is what you are referring to then the answer is “Yes!, I have succeeded to fully eliminate all nuance that suggests to me that men are more knowledgeable and/or intelligent than women.”

Liz and Marshall, Based on my experiences and observations (perhaps someone has done exhaustive studies to prove otherwise, studies that I have not seen), much of how we view men and women is based on how we were taught and what we experienced growing up.

Both of my parents worked. My mother was a professional in the medical field. My parents taught me that people each have their own gifts and abilities. However, there was never any suggestion in our home or in our church that one gender should lead in either arena.

For those who grew up in homes and churches that taught otherwise, they may see these issues differently, and choose to associate with churches and spouses who are comfortable with their viewpoint. I have no problem with that. However, some of us do not see these issues that way. We do not make the distinctions based on gender that others do.

I remember the guy who said he wouldn’t have a woman work on him when he entered the emergency room. Well guess what? My mother was the only one available. She saved his life. He would have died if she had walked. But she ignored his ignorance, and saved him. Afterwards, he apologized for what he acknowledged was “plain stupidity” He had a major attitude adjustment.

Liz – not referring to gender bias, i.e. relative intelligence or knowledge acquired. Among men whom I interact with while visiting ekklesia, it is most usual for a man to hear what a woman is saying within the framework of where she is; to be hearing a man as where he may be coming [going]. (recalling the earlier “pure river” analogy). Also, more thorough communication can be realized when a man and a women share as a team common experience & information, even though they are essentially presenting information that either one alone might furnish. Why aren’t women teaching men? Where women attempt to teach men, the oral message is largely received/framed as first relevant to the speaker and conjoined in the present. The usual result from this being ineffectual within ekklesia/church. But then, also is “preaching to the choir” quite ineffectual. It would be that the people of God from long ago understood (in God’s great purpose) ‘function in being’ far better than we; that men & women (and children) participate extensively with community life in Christ, doing so with some understood, intrinsic variation/rolls — Not because they must, but rather because doing so continues as God’s ideal for His children.

Excluding women has had a detrimental effect on the lives of both women, men and children. I consider myself just Christian despite the fact that I do attend a Roman Catholic Church because this is the Church my parents raised me in and I still live with my parents. My parents disagree with the Church’s stance on birth control and I do believe women should be allowed to be priests more so then allowing priests to marry. I do believe the Catholic Church has lost members because of it is unbiblical teachings on Women in Leadership and Birthcontrol and of Clergy playing God(preaching that you need Clergy to be saved rather Jesus Christ and his commandments to be saved). For me I do believe in the Sacraments and the role they play in Salvation- Jesus did change wine into this blood and the bread into his body during the last supper and told believers to do this in his memory and he did foreshadow what would happen on the Cross he gave up his life so we maybe could be saved, because not all who profess Christ is Lord or believe in God will be saved, there are many people who claim they can abuse, sleep around, steal, cheat and that they’ll still go to heave because 1 day they said the sinner’s prayer, actions speak louder then words.

I do believe all Christians should be baptized for Jesus said himself to Nicodemius Unless you are born again of water and born again of faith you cannot enter the kingdom of God and Christ commanded disciples to baptize all believers in the name of the Father of the Son and of The Holy Spirit. I do believe also in the Sanctity of Marriage and that is a life long commitment and God instituted sacrament. I do believe Confirmation is a sign that one has accepted the Holy Spirit and Christ into their life is proffessing their belief publicly. I do believe in Holy Orders- but I believe women should be included. I believe in both communal and private confession, but I believe it is a choice and only God can forgive sins. So I am a faithful person, I have been bornagain by both water and faith, according to the Scriptures that is the requirement of Salvation and I produce Good works not to earn salvation but as result of belief in Jesus and I do not believe in Sola Fide I do believe my Salvation is an ongoing process, because should I turn away from Christ I do believe salvation can be lost. For I do not understand why some of my Evangelical friends are never baptized despite the fact that Christ says to be baptized, if baptism was nothing or if it wasn’t necessary then God would have not instructed people to baptize. But I am not here to discuss Evangelical/Anglican-Mainline Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox differences.I am here to discuss why women have been suffering because of Patriachy and Male dominance in the Church.

In the Catholic Church, women are alter servers, we can read during Mass, we are ushers, we teach Sunday School to kids, we lead bible studies, we do fundraising. However, when it comes to Church Policy and Church dogma we have no say, we have no single representative. Whatever the Pope, Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops say Goes when it comes to Church Law. The Church is still against birth control, and has this idea in the complemantary gender role basically women should be quiet, pop babies and man should only lead in the Church and work. Many Catholic practice contraception and partake in the Eucharist, according to the Church this is evil. Despite the fact that there is biblical evidence that sex was also created for pleasure the Catholic Church seems to deny this. The stance againt birth control is tied with the stance against women leaders. If women are considered just objects for popping babies and staying quiet in the home then they are not suited for leadership either. There is also this attitude that in front of the alter when the Priest blessed the bread and the wine and Catholic believe that Christ then becomes present int he bread and the wine that a women cannot represent the Church because Christ was a male, but what the Church and other Churches forget is that Christ only took the form of the male on earth, God is neither male or female. Christ humbeled himself, he criticized the arch priests of the temples, the Catholic priests and bishops of today most of them act like the arch priests and hypocrites that crucified Jesus. So much of Catholic dogma is about control, trying to keep women in control; however, the Church is losing their grip. Most women in Western Society use contraception, are seeking education, are seeking leadership positions and do not have the same beliefs and values because they simply have more options now. For the Church to blame contraception and women leadership on the fault of divorce, rape, drug abuse in kids, people having sex before marriage on women is hypocritical. In history, there has always been Premarital sex, in history there have been methods to prevent pregnancy(the ancient Egyptians used herbs), in history women couldn’t divorce their husbands because they would lose their property and many marriages in the 30,40,50s were not because were in love simply people had no choice. In the past, in western societies, there were arranged marriages for money, power, securing property, there was also plenty of adultery. So to put the blame on Contraception and women in leadership is totally hypocritical. Women simply have more rights and choices then they did 50 years ago and there is nothing unbiblical about this. Men who want to control women’s bodies and the role they play in the Church, simply do so out of fear that they may lose their own power. This is the affect on Patriachy on our Society. In non-western worlds, in 3rd world countries women are still used as slaves, their property of men, women do not have access to contraception, to give birth to children in safe places, they are ganged raped and have no right sometimes even to divorce abusive spouses. In one latin-American country, a nine- year old girl was raped by her step-father, she became pregnant, her life was in danger, her mother decided to remove the pregnancy and press charges against the step-father(her new husband). The doctor and mother and the girl were all Excommunicated from the Catholic Church, where as the male rapist is still in Good like by the Catholic Church. This system of degrading women and excluding them only hurts women and girls especially in third world countries. In some cases in Africa, women are forced to marry their rapists. This wouldn’t happen in the US, but it certainly has happened in Central America and South America, Africa, and Asia. The only reason why women have it better in the US Church is because of Western law and Democracy. In former Communists countries, like Poland in some Churches women are not even allowed to read during mass, forget about altar girls I’ve only seen 1 church that allowed it, and couples who practice contraception, who are divorced, who have children out of wedlock, priests often deny them the Sacraments especially in small towns. Orthodox Countries and Ukrainian Catholic faith are worse- no women is allowed to read, no altar servers, everything the Church does in men lead, the whole Orthodox wedding ceremony is sexist- the crowning aspect signifies the women is under the kingdom of her husband and he is the king of the world and of his wife. The couple doesn’t even promise to love each other, it is the priest(Orthodox Pop-from the tserkvia who speaks for them), he even puts their wedding bands on them. Contraception is seen as evil and women even have to cover their heads in some of these Churches, like Muslim women do, yet many Orthodox women in Russia seek abortion as a form of contraception, very hypocritical.

I know I wrote a lot but my point is excluding women equals creating policies that are negative towards women.

You have a lot of insight, M. I think it is very important to hear your voice. Please continue to speak. These ideas about the subjection of women are slowly changing. Even the “Bible” card and the “God” card (as in this is supposedly what God wants and the Bible teaches – which I do not agree with) are holding sway with fewer and fewer people. And that is a good thing.

This is a sensitive issue.It is important not to see this as a struggle of the sexes.This is neither about patriarchism or feminism.We must guard ourselves against the teachings and ideas from outside which can lead us astray from the truth in the Bible. We must be careful not to use the scriptures to project our own bias against whatever. But it is important to remember that apostle Paul was powerfully used by the Lord .We read about it ,He actually lived through it.Surely we can’t claim to know more about God and living the Christian life than him. Surely we can trust his guidelines for the church were in the best interest of the belivers.

San, Yes, we can admit these things about Paul. But I think Paul would tell us “But we all have the mind of Christ!” So Paul was speaking to certain situations in his culture in his time. He might say (or invite us to say) something very different to certain situations in our culture in our time.

Jeremy, While it’s true that we differ culturally from those times,I can’t see why propriety of worship would be incompatible with any culture today. Paul gave invaluable instructions to the early church which help to serve as shining examples for today’s churches to follow.

Paul was not stating a divine universal requirement, but simply acknowledging a local custom. Consequently, for a man to cover his head would be a disgrace because it suggested a reversal of proper relationships. DISGRACES HER HEAD could refer to her own head literally and to her husband metaphorically. In Paul’s day, numerous symbols were used to signify a woman’s subordinate relationship to men, particularly wives to husbands, usually in the form of head coverings. In many near East countries today, a married woman’s veil still signifies that she will not expose herself to other men. As with meat that had been offered to idols, there was nothing in the wearing or not wearing of the head covering itself that was wrong, but the rebellion against God. In those days it was usually women who were considered rebellious against God such as prostitutes or extreme feminists who would shave their heads. But still, these are women Jesus died on the cross for. Paul could be saying ‘if you do not want to look like a prostitute or rebellious feminist by cutting off you hair, don’t prophecy or pray with your head uncovered either’, to make the same comparison possible we would only have to see how worldly women today appear. Still they are women Jesus died for and they will never ever become Christians if they aren’t shown unconditional acceptance and forced to wear a veil. Jesus redeemed us from the curse of the law, Paul killed Christians before he met Jesus, he was not perfect but Jesus is. Even Paul, Peter and Barnabas disagreed on things.